v-^ 






v>^' ;atS 



f; ^^ 



'•^^ 









-^^ 










*^o 




. « - " A" 






3. * ^^*^ ^. 







J> o " " -^ 












.^ 















> 







,v^ 



% 












■^^^^ 






L E T T E E 



OP 



HON. ALFRED B. GEEExNWOOD, 

1; 

OF ARKANSAS, ^f^^i 

h 

TO HIS CONSTITUENTS. . 



Fellow-Citizens: Haring been twice honored with your confidence, and having had no 
opportunity to visit you in person since the relation of constituent and Representative has 
existed between us, and believing that it is the right of the people to know how their public 
servants have discharged the duties confided to each respectively, I have thought proper to 
adopt this mode to make known to you how, and in what manner, I have discharged the high 
and important trusts confided to me as your Representative in the Congress of the United 
States. 

In calling me from a position which the people of the fourth judicial circuit had generously 
assigned me, to assume the more responsible and difficult duties of a Representative of a free, 
enlightened, and generous people, I was aware of the responsibilities that attached to my 
position; I, however, entered upon the discharge of the duties the people of my district 
assigned me, not without distrust as to my ability to discharge those duties to the satisfaction 
of the people or to myself. I, however, took my seat, determined to watoh, with a vigilant 
eye, any movement that might in the least degree affect the people I had the honor then, 
and now, to represent; and, if possible, to so influence legislation that we might be benefited 
thereby. 

The first gi-eat question that presented itself for my consiaeration during the first session of 
the Thirty -Third Congress was those bills to form territorial governments for the Territories 
of Kansas and Nebraska. By the terms of those bills, that odious restriction, forced upon 
the South in 1820, known as the Missouri compromise, was in express terms repealed. That 
compromise was virtually abrogated by those series of measures known as- the compromises 
of 1850. The question was, whether we should so shape our legislation as to conform to the 
principles involved in those compromises of that year? I w^as of opinion, that those compro- 
mises were but a mockery, unless all subsequent legislation was made to conform to them. 

You well recollect the excitement throughout the country in 1850, as well as in 1854, when 
the Kansas-Nebraska bill was under discussion. I advocated and voted for the Kansas- 
Nebraska bill. The question may be asked, what did the South gain by the passage of those 
bills.' I answer, that the South recovered, in part, only what she was almost forced to surrender 
by the terms of the Missouri restriction passed in 1820 to save the Union. I say we only 
recovered a part of what we lost in 1820; slavery existed in all that territory which we acquired 



■i£ Cijl..t4 



.Q^ 



by the treaty of 1803. Missoviri, and the territory now composing Kansas and liTebrafska, 
were also a part of the territory acquired by that treaty; and by the terms of the Missouri 
restriction it v/as provided, that slavery should never exist north of latitude 36° 30'. It will 
also be recollected that there was no express provision that slavery should exist south of that 
line, but simply non-intervention by Congress. It will also be remembered that when our 
own State asked for admission into the Union upon equal terms with the other States, the 
opposition we met with from the Free-Soil and Abolition party of the North, who are now so 
clamorous for the restoration of that line. The Kansas-Nebraska bill did not propose to 
legislate slavery into those Territories, although the South had a right, in justice, to demand 
to be placed back in the possession of those rights taken from us in 1820; nor did those bills 
propose to inhibit slavery therefrom, but simply provided to leave the people, who might settle 
in those Territories, to arrange their own domestic concerns in their own way, subject only 
to the Constitution of the United States. And for asking this simple act of justice, the fanat- 
ical howl wfts heard all over the land, denouncing the Administration and the Democratic 
party, branding them with faithlessness for interfering with what they were pleased to term 
a time-honored compromise; and charging us with a breach of good faith. We said to them 
that we were willing, and had been willing, as a measure of compromise only of the whole 
question forever, to extend that line to the Pacific ocean; but they indignantly refused it. We 
contended that, if that compromise was right in 1820, it was right to extend its provisions to 
all the tej-ritoi-y that we subsequently acquired. Although we hear the Abolition cry now in 
favor of the compromise of 1820, a large vote of that party was cast against it the next year 
after its adoption, when Missouri was finally admitted into the Union. And yet we hear this 
party boasting of their sincerity and generosity to the South. The South has never asked 
anything that the Constitution did not give her, and she never will. Nor will she, I imagine, 
ever submit to anything tliat is wrong, let it come from what quarter it may. 

The Kansas-Nebraska bill was passed by a handsome majority, thus establishing, for the 
first time, the great principle of non-intervention — that Congress shall not, nor has it the power 
to, legislate upon the subject of slavery in the Territories, but leaving the whole subject to the 
people who may settle therein, and who alone are to be aflfected by the institution, to determ- 
ine whether they will have slavery or not, thus leaving the people free to go into the com- 
mon domain from all portions of this vast country, and to carry with them property of every 
description, without reserve; 'and when the people meet in convention to form a State consti- 
tution, preparatory to admission into the Union as a State, they can then coolly and deliber- 
ately determine whether slavery shall exist there or not. To this liberal and just principle it 
seems to me every man ought heartily to subscribe. 

I hold that the people who may settle the Territories arc just as capable of self-government 
as they were in the States; and by emigrating to the great West is no evidence that they have 
lost their reason, but rather convincing proof to the contrary. Upon the passage of these 
territorial bills, the country would have been quiet, and the Territories settled up gradually 
as other Ten-itories of the United States, had it not been for the Abolition element of the 
North. Being defeated in their effort tO:prevent the passage of this bill, in order to still keep 
up the agitation of the slavery question, they formed emigration aM societies, for the avowed 
purpose of preventing the bona fide settler iii the Territory of Kansas from a fair participation 
in tlie formation of a government of his choice. 

This aid society shipped hundreds of persons to Kansas, not for the purpose of settling the 
country in good faith, but to take part in the elections, and to secure, if possible, a Free-Soil 
Legislature, who would cooperate with Reeder, the then Governor of the Territory. This 
Abolition party being defeated in their efforts to prevent the passage of the bill, as well as in their 
effort to abolitionize the country by means of their aid societies, now fallback, and declare 
that they will refuse to admit any more slave States into the Union. This is, and will be, the 
final and last effort of this party to defeat the will of the people. What will be the result of 



8 

such a movement, time alone will develop. There is no conjecturing as to the length this 
fanatical spirit will be carried. They arc now engaged in Congress in an cfibrt to oust General 
Whitfield, the regularly-elected Delegate to Congress, and put in his place the notorious 
Reeder, who was not even voted for on the day fixed by law for the election. Should such 
an outrage be perpetrated, I fear it will be attended with consequences of the most disastrous 
character; and it will be difficult to restrain our peaceful citizens of Kansas and elsewhere from 
resorting to other means to assert their rights, and redress their wrongs. For the peace and 
quiet of the country we hope for the better. 

During the last Congress, the bill granting additional bounty lands to those patriots who 
had served in our wars also received my sanction and support. I was also anxious to have 
procured further grants of the public lands to aid in the construction of railroads in our State. 

The Committee on Public Lands unanimously reported what is usually known as the Western 
Border railroad bill, to connect with the road from St. Louis to Springfield, Missouri. What 
will be the fate of this measure now, as well as the St. Louis, Helena, and New Orleans 
railroad bill, it is impossible for me to form any correct idea. I shall spare neither panis or 
trouble in trying to have them favorably considered. What the future policy of the Govern- 
ment may be, in relation to granting alternate sections of land to aid in the construction of 
railroads, I cannot say. For myself, I think it sound policy to favor this system. I am also 
strongly in favor of the General Government donating all the pubhc lands to the States in 
which they lie. The time has passed when the Government should look to the proceeds of 
the sales of her pubhc lands as a source of revenue. Our overflowing Tx-easury is getting to 
be an evil rather than a benefit. We should collect no more revenue than is absolutely neces- 
sary to defray the expenses of the Government, economically administered. I shall steadily 
and firmly oppose any division of those lands, or the proceeds thereof, amojig the several 
States. The old States have had annually large amounts expended for various objects; while 
our State, in common with many of , the new States, has had comparatively nothing. The 
States bordering upon the Atlantic have been the peculiar favorites in those heavy expendi- 
tures; while A^e in Arkansas have not been able to procure the smallest appropriation to im- 
prove either of our rivers, although acknowledged to be proper objects for such appropriations. 
I trust that our efforts in future will be regarded with more favor. In all these important prop- 
ositions, I shall, without doubt, have the cooperation of the whole delegation, which, I am 
proud to say, are a unit, and act together with the utmost harmony. 

Fellow-citizens, I cannot close this address without alluding, briefly, to the political ques- 
tions v/hich now are exciting the whole country. North and South. As your Representative, 
you are entitled to know my opinions upon all questions in any way connected with my pubhc 
duties. I have no opinions which I desire to conceal. I would be unworthy of your confi- 
dence, if I entertained opinions upon any subject affecting you politically or otherwise, that J 
was unwilling, publicly, to avow. After the triumphant success of the Democratic party and 
their principles in 1852, our political opponents seemed to acquiesce in the result. The prin- 
ciples of the .two parties had been fi-eely and fairly discussed before the people, and they had 
rendered their verdict through the ballot-box. The American people did not suppose at that 
time that, within the short space of eighteen months, any new party would present itself in 
opposition to the time-honored principoes of the Democratic party; but expected to meet the 
same opposition with which we have contended for years past. But we were met by a party 
who professed to have arisen upon the ruins of the old Whig and D(?mocratic parties, charging 
that both the old parties v/ere corrupt, and asserting that they were the only pure party in the 
country. They were called and known as the Know ^^othing party. 

This party has arisen in your midst, which, for a time, by its secret and midnight opera- 
tions, concealed from the public its objects and designs. It originated in that fanatical spirit 
of intolerance which had marked the aggressive policy of the Abolitionists upon the constitu- 
tional rights of the South; and, therefoi-e, included in its ranks and councils the same class of men. 



And in that dark recess Abolitionism and Know Nothingism embraced with brotlicrly affec- 
tion; and the united band, at least in the nortliern States, marched in one common brother- 
hood in their unrelenting warfare upon the Constitution of our country. Their cry is, " Down 
with the South and her institutions!" then " Down with the foreign -born citizen and the 
Roman Catholic!" 

Not only in tlie North, but in Arkansas, one of the southern States of this Union, has this 
Know J^Tothing party found advocates of these proscriptive and intolerant doctrines. You arc 
aware, also, that whenever we charge upon this party proscription and intolerance, they deny 
the charge, and refer us to their published platform, to which their great convention in June 
last gave birth. 

For the purpose of fixing this charge upon them, I refer you, fellow-citizens, to the speech 
of one of their own party, delivered ;n the Hall of the House of Representatives during the 
protracted contest for the election of a SjDeaker. I allude to IVIr. Eustis, of Louisiana, who 
declared that his party did proscribe the Roman Catholic; and that if the eighth section did 
not mean proscription, it meant nothing. In the course of his remarks he rejoiced that Gen- 
eral Plournoy was defeated in Virginia for the office of Governor; and, as a further evidence 
of the meaning and intention of this party, I will introduce other testimony which has met 
the public eye, and therefore higher evidence of the principles and objects of this party than 
mere empty declarations of State or national conventions. I propose to judge of this party, 
not by what they say, (for they have placed themselves in such position by their oath of 
secrecy, that they are not entitled upon this subject to the fullest credit,) but what they have 
sworn to. "Whatever announcement of principles they have paraded before the country will 
not, in my opinion, relieve their consciences of the abominable oaths they have voluntarily 
takeTi. The members of this party, or at least such as they thought could not be otherwise 
trusted, have sworn: 

" That they will not vote, nor give their influence for any man for any office in the gift of 
' the people, unless he be an American-born citizen, in favor of Americans ruling America, 
' nor if he be a Roman Catholic; and that they will, when elected or appointed to any office or 
' official station, conferring on such officer the power to do so, remove all foreigners, aliens, 
' or Roman Catholics from office or place, and that they will, in no case, appoint such to any 
' office or place within their gift." 

Eat, it may be asked, upon what ground I make the charge, that these oaths have been 
taken by the members of this party? My answer is, that I have, in my public addresses at 
home upon this subject, charged it upon them; and that the charge has been pubUcly admitted 
by some of the members of this party, and never denied by any that I am aware of; and that 
in every instance, when and where I made this charge, if it had been denied, I stood prepared 
ta prove my assertion. Then the whole platform of this party is contained in the oaths which 
I regard as the key to this whole thing; which is, that none but American-born citizens shall 
hold any office whatever; that no American -born citizen shall hold any office of honoror profit, 
unless he be in favor of Knoiv J^othingism ruling America; and, in no event, shall a Roman 
Catholic hold office, whether he be native or foreign-born, thus proscribing one and a half 
millions of the native-born citizens of the United StateSj^imply because they prefer a different 
mode of worship to what we do. I am no advocate ftr the Catholic mode of worship. I 
am a Protestant in belief; but I am unwilling to proscribe my neighbor because he differs with 
me upon religious faith. If this party should persist in this warfare upon one religious 
denomination, and should be successful, let me tell you that no religious denomination will 
be safe. Every other churcli, who may dare to difler with, or oppose the policy of this party, 
will be similarly proscribed and put down if they have the power to accomplish it. This 
party have, from the commencement, sought to divide and distract the Democratic party, and 
for no other reason than that the Democracy have, from the beginning, sought to expose the 
actings and doings of the Know J^othing organization, and to hold them up to the public gaze, 



5 

that the world might see their dosigns and treachery. Wc are for the largest freedom of 
conscience, and seek to proscribe no man on account of his birth or his religious sentiments. 
This is not the first time within your recollection and mine, that an attempt has been made to 
form what they are pleased to call an American party in this country. 

In 1839, an organization was commenced under the lead of General Scott, which, however, 
was soon abandoned. In 1843 and 1844, and as late as in 1846, a party had its origin of this 
character, all of which, however, ^^as soon frowned down as unworthy the American people. 
These demonstrations, however, were made in open day, and the people could understand at 
once the object and intention of the movers of the proposition. And I imagine, if the present 
organization of the Know Nothings had been openly and publicly, and in the light of day pro- 
claimed, it would have long since met the same fate. But they preferred darkness rather than 
light, and they bound their followers down by oaths of the most degrading character. The 
days of the Hartford convention have not passed from your memory so far that we may not 
trace some of the leading features of the origin of the ci-eed of this prescriptive party. In the 
days of the Revolution, the Father of his Country never stopped to ask his noble followers 
where they were born, or what religion they professed. The foreign-born and the native, 
the Protestant and the Catholic, each mingled their blood together under the common flag; and 
this is true of every battle-field since the days of the Revolution. Catholic La Fayette fought 
side by side with the Father of his Country, and enjoyed his confidence to the day of his death. 
And yet, if he was now living, this Knoio Jfothin^ party would proscribe him as unworthy to 
receive their support, because he was a Catholic and foreigner; while the notorious traitor, 
Benedict Arnold, born in Connecticut, could be admitted to full membership in their order, 
and of course entitled to receive the support of their party for office. Are these principles in 
accordance with the Constitution, or are they consistent v/ith the obligations imposed by thac 
instrument.' If not, let me appeal to you to give your support to the friends of that instru- 
ment, and not to those who are trampling it under foot. But they tell us that they do not 
propose any test for ofiice by legislation, and therefore they do not violate the Constitution. In 
response, I tell them, that it is true they cannot legislate upon that subject, but they bind 
themselves by oath not to support any man for office who is not a native-born citizen, nor 
if he be a Roman Catholic; thereby binding themselves to do that, by their act, which the 
Constitution expressly forbids; which, in my humble judgment, is a palpable violation of the 
spirit, if not the very letter, of that instrument which every officer is sv/orn to support, and 
which it is the duty of every good citizen to maintain. 

If the object of this party is to prevent foreign criminals and vagrant paupers from immi- 
grating to this country, I tell them that our laws are ample for that purpose now, and nothing 
is necessary but its faithful execution. No, fellow-citizens, this is not the object of this party. 
Ii is victory and spoils. It is comjjosed of political adventurers, in a great degree, who are 
ready to join any political organization that promises the least reward. 

I propose, nov/, to speak of the fruits of this Knoio J^othing organization. It is said that 
the tree is known by its fruit. In all the electi"ons North that took place after the passage of 
the Nebraska bill, all the elements in the northern States who are now, or have been for 
yeai-s, warring upon the Constitution and the institutions of the South, formed a fusion, and 
acted together, and succeeded in striking down nearly every man who dared to stand up and 
v/ard ofl" their blows upon that sacred instrument. A large number of the true men of the 
North, who had occupied places in both branches of the national Legislature, were crushed 
out by that spirit of fanaticism so common in the free States. Let me ask, who now fills the 
places of these sound national Democrats .' I answer, such men as the Speaker-elect of the 
House of Representatives, who, with one hundred others who agree with him politically, 
voted, during the present session of Congress, upon a resolution declaring the agitation of the 
subject of slavery to be unjust and productive of evil, against that resolution, and in favor of 
agitation — men who supported the present Speaker in his election, both before and after he, 



6 

in a boasting spirit, declared upon the floor of the House that he represented the strongest 
anti-slavery district in the United States; and who, upon being asked whether he would so 
egislate as to place the black and the white race upon an equality, said, that the stronger race 
would succumb to, and absorb the weaker, and he would patiently wait to see which of the 
two races would absorb the other. These are the men that the doctrine of Knoiv J^''oth'mgism 
has brought into power, in the place of those true men of the North who stand up between 
us and the fimaticism of that section of the Union, and hurl back the tide which threaten our 
southern institutions. This party, being in power in the House, and by the consent of a 
portion at least of that branch of Know Motliing politicians who claim nationality, I ask, can it 
be possible that fhe doctrines of this party can longer exist in the South ? Every lover of the 
Union and friend of the Constitution are ready to say no. The country, then, can only look 
to the Democratic party for the salvation of our institutions, and the only party who has a 
shadow of claim to nationality. The success of the Black Republicans in the election of a 
Speaker has placed it in his power to make another stroke at the South in the organization of 
every committee of any importance. At the head of the Committee on Territories stands 
Mr. Grow, of Pennsylvania, who represents the district formerly represented by Mr. 
Wilmot, who was the author of that obnoxious measure known throughout the country as 
the " Wilmot proviso." Mr. Washburx, of the State of Maine, was placed at the head of 
the Committee of Elections, whose hostility to the institutions of the South knows no bounds. 

During several sessions past the gallant Richardson, of Illinois, stood at the head of this 
Committee on Territories, the duties of which position he discharged with signal ability. It 
was him that stood in front of the memorable contest upon the Kansas and Nebraska bills, 
which gave to the people the jiower to shape their own domestic institutions; and yet he 
was displaced for the purpose of placing a man at the head of that committee who is under- 
stood to be one of the leaders of this Black Republican party in the State of Pennsylvania. 

At the head of the Committee of Ways and Mcaiis stands L. D. Campbell, of Ohio, who, 
it is understood, is the very embodiment of the anti-slavery sentiment in his own State. Mr., 
Meaciiam, of Vermont, stands at the head of the Committee for the District of Columbia, 
backed by a majority who agree with him ujion the subject of abolishing slavery in the 
District. I might enumerate others, and repeat, that no southern man has been appointed 
chairman of any committee of any importance. 

The Know J^othing Black Republican party in the North, and what is called the national 
twelfth-section Know Jfothings in the South, agree in some three or four particulars. 

First. They agree in their war upon the Democratic party and its principles. 

Secondly. They are in favor of repealing our naturalization laws, and consequently exclu- 
sion from the privileges of American citizenship of all who are not so fortunate as to be born 
upon this side of the Atlantic ocean. 

Thirdly. To exclude from all offices all Catholics, whether native or foreign-born — a demon- 
stration of which they gave last June in excluding from their convention the delegates from 
Louisiana. 

These are some of the leading principles of this party, and, strange to say, are the chief 
elements of the success which has attended its course. Wo the oppressed of the European 
nations they say, no matter if they were induced to leavethe yoke of tyranny which oppressed 
them in the Old World; and no matter though their hearts were longing for the natural rights 
of man, like our pilgrim fathers, they turn their eyes towards our own happy land as to apolar 
star of hope, and, dropping a tear on the graves of their father§, bid the parting word to those 
as dear as life, sever the ties which bind them to kindred and home, take a last lingering look 
upon their native hills and valleys with the fond association of the past clinging around them, 
to find a home upon the American soil, whore they may enjoy freedom — yet this party tells 
them that they are enemies to the country, and unfit to exercise the dearest rights of freemen, 
the right of suffrage — unfit to enjoy the glorious privilege of American citizenship, although 



Ihey are loyal to the Constitution, and have poured out their blood upon every batllc-ficUl. 
To the Catholic they say, it was in vain that your fathers sought America for freedom of 
conscience; though you may have poured forth your blood in common with the patriots of the 
Revolution, without distinction of faith; though Charles Carroll, of Carroll ton, the last survivor 
of the Declaration of Independence, was of your number; though ever since the foundation 
of the Government you have yielded to it your ardent and honest support, and afforded it 
some of the brightest stars in its history— yet they tell you that your religion is political, and 
at war with the interests of the country, and you must cither renounce the privilege of wor- 
shiping God according to the dictates of your own conscience, or fall before their triumphant 
march. 

After all this, they tell you that they make no war upon any man's religion; but as long aa 
they remain Cathohcs they will disregard the Constitution, and make religion a test for office 
and exclude them, in common witli foreigners, from the rights and privileges of the American 
citizen. 

But this KnoiD JVothhis party will now tell us that it is true our principles, as set forth in 
the platform issued in June last, was very objectionable, so much so that they felt called upon 
to call another convention on the 18th of February, 1856, for the purpose of rearranging their 
old platform so as to obviate some of the loading objections to the original. And what is this 
new platform? I must confess that I am unable to see any point in it. And in this I am 
sustained by Mr. Sheets, of Indiana, a member of the party, and delegate to the convention. 
He said that it was so covered up in verbiage, that the presidential election would be over 
before the people could know what it meant; and he was, therefore, for it. hi one portion of 
this new platform it proposes to sustain the principles of the Ka:isas bill, and in another 
portion, in which it sums up the causes of hostility to the Administration of General Pierce 
is found this language: 

*' Opposition to the present Administration as shown in reopening sectional agitation by the 
repeal of the Missouri compromise." 

This party that seeks to put down the Democracy evidently designs, if we may judge of the 
future by the past, to call conventions, and send before the country new platforms of prin- 
ciples, so soon as they ascertain that the one presented does not bid fair to secure the spoils. 

I will give the fifth section of this new platform. It is as follows : 

"No person should be selected forpolitical station (whether of native or foreign birth) who 

* recognizes any allegiance, or obligation of any description, to any foreign prince, potentate, 
' or Power, or who refuses to recognize the Federal and State constitutions (each within its 

* sphere) as paramount to all other laws as rules of political action." 

Now, if, by the incorporation of this section in the platform, they designed to induce the 
people to believe that they did not intend to make religion or birth a question, in order to make 
that section effectual, I suppose that if any foreign-born citizen, or Catholic, presented his 
name for office, they would institute a kind of inquisition for the purpose of ascertainino- 
whether or not he was loyal to this country and to the Constitution. This section even 
prohibits a Catholic citizen from looking to the Pope as the spiritual head of his church. 

I propose to introduce the argument of a member of this Know If hin;; party, the Hon. 
Mr.EusTis, of Louisiana, delivered in the House of Representatives upon this same subject 
of proscription: 

Mr. EusTis said: " Gentlemen talk about the Papal power. The honorable gentleman 
' from North Carolina [Mr. Reade] the other day asked the honorable gentleman from 
'Georgia, [Mr. Stephens,] whether he would vote for a Catholic, whose religious opinions 
« he suspected of being hostile to the general interests of thisjcouutry ? What right has the 
' gentleman to challenge the nationality of his peer, his equal, and require him to purge hia 
' conscience before he can hold communion with him on the footing of an American citizen.? 
' What right have you to denounce him as a traitor to his country, and coinpel him to stand 



D£^S 



8 

oefore your bar as a criminal — as an individual hostile to the institutions of your country ? 

I tell you, gentlemen," continued Mr. Eustis, " that you have just as much right to pnt your 

hands in another man's po(^et to see if the money he has belongs to him, as to take that 

' position towards American Catholics — as to dare to presume to ask him whether he entertains 

' opinions hostile to the institutions of this country. 

" Gentlemen ought to recollect, that in this Congress there is not a single Catholic priest; 
' and, for my part, I am opposed to all religious interference with our political affairs. " 

In this same speech that gentleman also said, that it made him blush for his countrymen, 
when he saw the Protestant Church soiling its robes in the dirty mire of politics; and appealed 
to them to recollect that the Pope of Rome, who seemed to be such a great terror, was then in 
the custody of a guard of French soldiers. 

I would commend all parties to read the able speech of Mr. Eustis upon this subject of 
religious proscription. 

The American party, as they call themselves, have nominated their ticket for President. 
They wil! appeal to the old-line Whigs, who have of late determined to act with the Democ- 
racy, to come to the support of Mr. Fillmore, as a Whig. . I imagine that I now hear the 
response of these national Whigs, who have been battling with the Democracy against this 
organization. They will say, true, they have heretofore supported Mr. Fillmore and his 
policy; but then he carried the old Whig banner in his hand; but now, instead of waving that 
banner over the nation, he stoops to pick up the dark lantern of a sworn political party, who 
have made war upon the poor oppressed foreign-born citizen and the Catholic. Is a party 
entertaining these principles worthy of the support of honorable Whigs or Democrats ? And 
is it to attain the objects which it so boldly avows, secure the Government into its hands, 
and carry its odious measures into effect.' The history of the past ani3w«rs. No. A voice 
from the tombs of the Fathers of the Republic answers. No. Is this Government to go into 
the hands of a party that is to control it by signs, grips, and pass-words ? An enlightened 
and patriotic people answer; No. 

I submit it calmly to their judgment and decision. Such Americanism cannot flourish long 
where freedom dwells. Its course is well nigh run; its doom is sealed. 

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

A. B. GREENWOOD. 

House of Representatives, 

Washington, D. C, March 20, 1856. 

Printed at tUe Congressional Globe office. 



WA^ 








,0" 







■Tf .■» f\^ 












-i. 



^"-n^. 



:^^- 



VA . 



/K^. 









V* 



.^q. 



V^^"" 




"<j> 



-f- 



.^^ 



